Just a question about one point (so to speak): (01)
>
> Re PTim: I realize that calling an interval a point is problematical.
> But in anything that has to do with the physical world, there is no
> way to specify a true point. Perhaps a better term would be "grain
> in time", abbreviated "Grit".
> (02)
Has anyone observed any problems of *logical consistency* in classifying a
point on a line as being identical to a closed interval of zero length, with
beginning and end points identical? Or are the 'point' and 'interval'
classifications merely two different views of the same thing? (03)
PatC (04)
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc.
908-561-3416
cell: 908-565-4053
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx (05)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 12:48 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Time representation
>
> Pat,
>
> The position I most strongly advocate is not a specific ontology,
> but a framework of conventions for organizing a multiplicity
> of special cases (not necessarily consistent with one another),
> making the implicit relationships explicit, and providing tools
> and guidelines for mixing and matching. The lattice of theories
> is an example. Robert Kent's IFF is a much more ambitious example.
>
> I would recommend a fairly simple framework for starters, since
> there's a danger of freezing half-baked ideas before they're fully
> baked. (RDF, for example, was hardly out of the oven before
> Tim Bray tried, unsuccessfully, to pull it back in.)
>
> > Do you have any granularity axioms? That is one of the hardest
> > ontological problems, in my experience.
>
> There are so many hard problems, it's hard to say which are harder.
> But the idea of taking the least significant digit as the criterion
> for implicit granularity is fairly common for experimental data
> (unless some explicit margin of error is stated).
>
> Re PTim: I realize that calling an interval a point is problematical.
> But in anything that has to do with the physical world, there is no
> way to specify a true point. Perhaps a better term would be "grain
> in time", abbreviated "Grit".
>
> John
>
> PS re HTML email formats: Your note of 11:18 was in a readable font
> for Thunderbird, but your note of 11:37 appeared in a tiny, tiny font.
> I had to increase the font size by two steps to make it the same as
> the previous note. But then the fonts for all other notes were too
> big, and I had to decrease the default by two steps.
>
> At least each of your notes was entirely in one font size. I've
> received some email in which each paragraph was in a progressively
> smaller font. That's why I hate HTML email.
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-
> forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (07)
|